Re: [emf-dev] ECORE graphical editor

[GAUFILLET Pierre <pierre.gaufillet@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Le mardi 31 octobre 2006 à 12:23 -0500, Ed Merks a écrit :
>     
>     Pierre, 
>     
>     I think the same issues with respect to the use of the GMF runtime components verses Topcased components come up with the UML editing capabilities.   I'm fine with doing something that's tactical and gets us a high function graphical editor quickly along with something more long term strategic that looks to merge the capabilities of GMF and Topcased.   But I need to be sure that both Kenn and Rich are also comfortable with this approach.  Are the things to be committed "as is" the same for both the UML and Ecore editing support?   It sounds like perhaps these common things would be committed as part of the Ecore graphical editing component and then reused in the UML graphical editing component, but will eventually become part of the GMF project.  Does that make sense? 
These are basic classes used in all our editors. Perhaps some of them may be considered as component-candidates to GMF, but I am really not sure of that due to architectural reasons (David Sciamma, who is in CC of this mail, may be more precise). If they can not be re-used as components, it may be as functional requirements.

Concerning the UML side, I agree that the GMF-oriented aspect is quite a killer point !
It may be better to concentrate on the ECORE aspect now because it is easier, and to see later how to go further for UML (or others) editors ?
An other possibility is to exchange and discuss our users requirements. Having 2 UML editors functionally equivalent developed with 2 different technologies may be a good way to get these technologies closer...

>     
>     Probably a good approach forward would be for you to present a road map for the direction you'd like this to go in at our next Modeling PMC meeting (two weeks from today).  Then all the interested parties will be present and we can reach agreement.  
Yes, it is a good idea. I think we need to have a clear understanding of the overall goals and current constraints of each project.
We can prepare and send to you a few simple slides (or a short paper) to support this discussion.
>     Rich was still suggesting that Ecore editing might properly belong in MDT, but Kenn feels hat MDT should only include industry standard models.   Perhaps we need to convince Kenn that Ecore is a defacto industry standard. ;-)  In any event, that's a minor organizational point and doesn't really affect the architecture at all.
>       
>     
>     We can certainly try to attract interested parties to participate in this.  Realistically though, most folks rather enjoy the free ride with occasional tendencies to be back seat drivers.  So from my point of view, I'm thrilled to see Topcased get directly and actively involved in this!  It's yet another important step forward for the community over all.  The more folks who participate the more other folks will feel left out and hence compelled to participate as well... 
I can only agree with this point of view !

>     
>     
>     Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>     mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
>     905-413-3265  (t/l 969)
>     
>     
Pierre Gaufillet
Software Engineering Methods - EYYWI
AIRBUS France
Web TOPCASED : http://www.topcased.org/

This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must not copy,
distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have
received it in error please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system management and
security reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.